Saint Matthew's

Also over at my non-church blog (I don’t know why I keep calling it a “private” blog since everyone can read it), I discuss an article found in this morning’s Wall Street Journal written by author Brian McCracken concerning “cool Christianity.” My post narrows his thought specifically to the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod and how it has been dealing with modern evangelism issues through the “Ablaze!” program.

As I wrote:

The challenge for a church that has reached the fork in the road is to decide which road to take. Even though many people like the idea of a church being “cool” and hip, the fact is that without Jesus Christ at the core of the entire life of a church, the church is merely a social club that does a lot of cool things. The question of why the church is needed is not answered in this modern idealistic social club view; instead of being embraced by our Lord in Word and Sacrament, church becomes a place to see people, to work on projects, and to hear the pastor talk about his new tattoo.

No, I do not have a tattoo.

I didn’t want to re-post that blog here, so here’s the link to go over and read it.

I was emailed a YouTube link to LCMS incoming president Rev. Matthew Harrison’s address to the convention following his election earlier today. It is always compelling to hear a pastor speak of sin and forgiveness.

I was looking over the list of the incoming officers for the LCMS and compared it to our nominations list, and I have to say, this New Jersey church didn’t do too shabbily.

We nominated five of the top incoming officers of our Synod:

Rev. Matthew Harrison — President
Rev. Herbert Mueller — First Vice President
Rev. John C. Wohlrabe Jr., — Second Vice President
Rev. Daniel Preus — Fourth Vice President
Rev. Scott Murray — Fifth Vice President

Rev. Paul L. Maier is the Third VP (our Voters’ Body did not nominate him.

Rev. Matthew Harrison, current executive director of LCMS World Relief and Human Care, was elected president of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod this afternoon with 54 percent of the vote. Congratulations to Rev. Harrison. Our prayers are with him, President Gerald Kieschnick who has served as our synodical leader for nine years, and our Missouri Synod as we walk together to proclaim Christ crucified.

“So, what are you hearing?”

That was a question posed to me in a late afternoon telephone call by a fellow clergy person regarding our Synod’s convention currently being held in Houston. To be honest, I don’t know much, but according to some people I know who are there, they have described the atmosphere as “tight,” especially as discussion and votes are being held on the important topic of Synodical governance.

One of the issues relayed to me was that this convention continued the downward spiral of the erosion of a regular congregational pastoral call. In the Augsburg Confession, Article XIV clearly states no one without a regular call is to preach or administer the Sacraments. For our LCMS over the past couple of decades, this has been eroded. District Presidents have been given the authority to consecrate people in congregations without a pastor to do the job of a pastor.

Or, as I like to think of it, “WHY THE HECK DID I GO TO SEMINARY AND GO BROKE TO BECOME A PASTOR IF I COULD HAVE JUST LEECHED ONTO MY DISTRICT PRESIDENT AND BEG HIM TO CONSECRATE ME?”

On June 25th, I celebrated my 5th anniversary of my ordination, a day that is truly a blessed one for me. On that day, after years of study and practice, I was now called “Reverend.” On July 17th five years ago, I became a “pastor” to this congregation. Duly and regularly called to Saint Matthew’s to serve as God’s under-shepherd, I am able to preach and bring the Sacraments to God’s children. That four year seminary journey was important for me. I took myself out of my regular life (or, as I like to say, “God pulled me by the shorthairs and dropped me in Fort Wayne”) and spent three years studying (not studying as hard as my professors wanted me to study, I admit). One year of this seminary experience was spent on vicarage in Sayville, New York at a blessed congregation where I saw the true application of that study first hand under the guidance of a terrific supervisor and a wonderful staff at Saint John’s. And since my ordination, I have spent endless time reading, studying, praying, trying to learn more about the Lutheran faith and a true understanding of the Christian life through the Word of God — all of which is part of the life of a pastor because the education never ends.

Would I have liked to stay in my old life and continue what I was doing while at the same time being able to play “Pastor” on weekends? Of course. That would have been ideal. I could have had none of the hardship of leaving family and friends, zero of the hard work, the opportunity to continue to live and play in New York, and still have the ability to act as clergy person on Sunday morning.

But no, God decided to lead me to seminary to study — to do it the hard way — and then get a regular call to Saint Matthew’s and serve this blessed congregation. It was a long and winding path, but I thank God for leading me here.

By making it easier for district presidents to appoint these pseudo-pastors, they are blatantly ignoring our Confessions we clergy people have sworn to uphold and believe. In fact, we are supposed to hold these Confessions and our Lord Jesus Christ so dear to our hearts that we would rather die than go against them.

See, our Confessions are more than just words on a piece of paper. They are who we are. By watering them down, we are acting as if they were written in invisible ink.

We pastors need a kick in the pants sometime. Deacons, deaconesses, consecrated whatever-you-want-to-call-them, elders, church council people, the people on the building’s committee — they are not pastors. We don’t live in a world of perpetual Halloween — the clothes someone wears doesn’t make them a pastor. A district president doesn’t have magical powers to make someone a pastor. Only God makes the pastor. That is why the call process is sacred.

And I don’t want to hear the whiny moans that cry, “Well, we need pastors to serve small congregations and since these churches can’t pay a full time pastor, we have to do something.” Yeah, how about letting pastors serve these congregations. We do have a method of vacancy pastors. Guess what? Pastors are more than willing to serve. Just ask.

If you don’t know by now, I am not a fan of heat and humidity. Oh, I can take the heat, but when humidity is added into the equation, this pastor can become rather unfriendly. This past week, I found myself sweating more than I do on Sunday mornings in church, and this didn’t make me happy. There were times when I wanted to just snap, but the Holy Spirit pulled me back from this wrongful abyss, and for that, I am grateful.

Yet, it is summertime here in Northern New Jersey and it will be hot. The only thing we anti-humidity people can do is go on vacation to Alaska or the South Pole to hide from the icky-stickiness that the sun and the jet stream bring to us at this time of the year. Or we can just complain endlessly. I guess we can all be happy that oppressive heat only comes onto our summer agenda a few times during July and August. After this past week’s heat wave, I hope the oppressive nature of summer goes somewhere else for the next eight to ten weeks when we can start thinking about sweaters.

Speaking of heat, starting today, our Synodical convention is being held in an equally hot and humid place: Houston, Texas. The reasons given for the placement of the convention in the hot house of Texas are two-fold: first, the Synod gets a good deal on hotel rooms and convention space; and second, our current Synodical President, Gerald Kieschnick, is from Texas. Of course, I want to know why we have to hold our convention during the hottest month of the year in one of the hottest places in the USA. Can’t we move our convention to October or November and hold it someplace where air conditioning is not mandatory for survival?

As it has been the case with the LC-MS for the last few decades, our conventions can be on the ‘hot’ side. Elections become gladiator fights between the confessional Lutherans and the more liberal confessional side. This year, President Gerald Kieschnick is being challenged primarily by Rev. Matthew Harrison, executive director of LCMS World Relief and Human Care. And what would an election be, even in God’s church, without some nastiness and heat?

An organization called “Jesus First” (yes, it is nice name, isn’t it?) has been leading the anti-Harrison forces, using some of the more slimy political tactics we’re used to seeing between politicians in New Jersey. ’Jesus First’ and their representatives are calling into question the finances of World Relief and Human Care, attacking Harrison for bloating the staff and wasting money, completely giving a pass to the bloated nature of our national synod and the constant reduction in support for missionaries. My stomach churns as I watch these types of political tactics being used by other pastors, tactics we all expect to come from politicians attacking other politicians, not between pastors. As a church body, we should be walking together to weed out waste within our national body and focus our energies on spreading the Gospel, not finding ways to smear someone’s good name.

I guess there is no fun if someone is working to  spread the Gospel; some church politicians think that sliming someone’s reputation is so much more fun.

‘Jesus First’ ought to remember the Eight Commandment. Or if they don’t want to live by this pesky little ’love thy neighbor-type’ commandment, they should change their name to something that leaves the name “Jesus” out of their title.

Ah, the political heat of the Missouri Synod in all its ugliness!

I think that is why I am happy that I am not in Houston this week. Yes, that area of the country is hot, humid, and unusually wet this summer. But the ‘heat’ caused by our Synod is something I cannot take.

For Lutherans, part of understanding why Christianity is so broken up into denominations and inter-denominations and location-specific house churches is to accept the very reality that theology divides. And that, in itself, is a good thing. LCMS Lutherans believe, teach, and accept the unaltered Book of Concord, the confessions of the church, as the true exposition of Holy Scripture. However, most LCMS Lutherans really don’t care much about the Book of Concord; they want the spiritual strength given by our Father in heaven to His people through the means of grace in order to live life in this very sinful world.

The relationship of God and humankind is very specific in the Lutheran context — the Triune God is the Creator, the Provider, the Redeemer, the Faith-Giver, the Sustainer, and the Sanctifier. We are just reminded that God gives this all to us out of a love we’ll never understand because He loves us. This grace comes from on high, not because we’re deserving of it, but because He loves those whom He created.

When looking around at other religions and Christian faiths, in particular, we see churches professing a kind of self-spiritualization. God is there, but you have to make the first move. Of course, if this kind of a God was all loving and caring, why would He wait for us to take the first step? A loving God takes that step before we can ever think of it, and within the Lutheran worldview, this is central to our understanding of God and humanity.

God comes to us first.

Before we could even dream of taking that step toward God, we Lutherans believe that God has already taken that first and most important step to our hearts and minds through His Holy Spirit.

This spiritual worldview is not very popular. The world of Christianity challenges us and defends its “We Open Our Hearts to God First” theology, which, to be honest, is very comforting for sinful people. For in this theology, we believe that we’ve changed because we’ve made ourselves strong. Too bad, it makes no logical sense.

I started thinking about this last night after my interview on KFUO-AM Radio with Roland Lettner. The topic we discussed dealt with whether or not a Christian can lose their salvation. Of course, the answer to that theologically challenging topic is “yes.” But not all Christians believe this is true; they say that once a Christian receives faith and salvation from God, they can never lose it.

In the somewhat educated opinion of this parish pastor, this does not jive with the theology of “We Open Our Hearts to God First” preached by these theologians.

For if one can open their hearts to God and let Him in, then why can’t they kick Him out?

To understand God in a biblical sense, God has always come to His people, just like He continues to come to us today through the means of grace, His Word and Sacraments received happily and openly by God’s sinful, yet forgiven, children. God doesn’t wait for an invitation — He comes to comfort and forgive us sinners, building us up to live our Christian lives is service to Him and our neighbor.

That is just one reason why church still matters.

Pat Robertson, the televangelist head of the Christian Broadcasting Network and “The 700 Club” television program, made a startling statement yesterday when it came to the devastating earthquake that hit Haiti.

Robertson said that the devil did it.

Even more, he said that the people of Haiti did this to themselves when they made a pact with the devil to get rid of their French occupiers in the 19th Century.

His evidence includes the state of the island in which Haiti is located — they share Hispaniola with the Dominican Republic. According to the reverend, the pact with the devil has kept Haiti from prospering. While the Dominican Republic has prospered, Haiti is impoverished. And now Haiti is suffering under a devastating earthquake while the DR is not.

Does this require a response?

I can’t believe I even typed those words above.

Please donate some money to the LCMS World Relief and Human Care; scroll to the bottom and click the “Give Now” button.

We’ll have a special weekend collection here at church this weekend.

I don’t post enough information regarding what our Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod is dealing with on a daily basis. In an effort to change that misstep, here is the latest news release from the Synod:

Kieschnick responds to Blue Ribbon Task Force report
By Linda C. Hoops

Believing that the delegates to next year’s Synod convention have a “right to hear and that I have a duty to share my thoughts, affirmations, concerns, and recommendations” on the report of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure and Governance, Synod President Dr. Gerald B. Kieschnick issued an eight-page response to the report Dec. 1.

His response and the 50-page task force report, released in late October, are on the LCMS Web site at http://www.lcms.org/lcmsfuture.

Kieschnick provided the rationale for the formation and work of the task force in a March 1, 2005, pastoral letter.

“There is a great need for a thorough and fundamental review of what our Synod is, how it is organized, and how it functions.  What was first created as an organizational system for a Synod made up of a small number of congregations (14) now struggles to serve more than 6,150 congregations.”

The task force was asked to suggest a philosophy and form of structure and governance for the decades ahead that is “appropriately representative, incorporates sufficient checks and balances, and is not cumbersome or excessively complex. It should facilitate maximum operating efficiency on behalf of and in support of the members and congregations of our Synod in accomplishing the mission of our Lord and His church.”

In his response to the final report, Kieschnick thanked the task force for its “faithful and extensive work over the past four and one-half years,” then evaluated the task force recommendations and indicated his level of support for each.

One of the major recommendations coming out of the report calls for the elimination of the Synod’s seven program boards and two of its six commissions.  Stating that the “structure of the national Synod has evolved over the years into a complex and inefficient system that is perceived as unresponsive to the needs of the congregations,” the task force report recommends consolidating the eliminated boards and commissions into two advisory commissions, one for National Mission and one for International Mission.

The senior staff members in these two commissions would be directly accountable to a chief mission officer, who would be accountable to the Synod president.

In his response, Kieschnick cites several examples of problems he has personally encountered in the current Synod structure, including budget-management issues and boards working independently of each other and not collaboratively.

Kieschnick supports the recommendation to eliminate the current boards and commissions, stating it would solve the problems of supervision and accountability within the Synod structure.  But he also says that having the chief mission officer accountable to him “could be seen as concentration of excessive authority in the office of the Synod president.  That is neither the task force’s intention nor my desire.”

Instead, he says a plan that would consolidate the current program boards and commissions into two boards (the Board for National Mission and the Board for International Mission), instead of two advisory commissions, “is worthy of consideration.”

“My primary concern in this matter is to improve the system that currently exists while also ensuring that the task force recommendation would properly and adequately satisfy my request and the Synod’s need for provision of appropriate checks and balances,” he writes.

He also states that “assigning to the president the direct or indirect responsibility to supervise the day-to-day work of the employees of the Synod and allowing the president a method of intervention should either board violate the constitution, bylaws, or resolutions of the Synod,” should be considered.

Kieschnick expresses support for the recommendations made in the first three sections of the report, which deal with amending the Synod’s constitution, the voting rights of individuals and congregations, and the restoration of circuits to the purpose for which they were originally intended, stating, “Circuits are so important for the health and well-being of congregations and ministers of the Gospel.”

In the fourth section, which discusses districts and congregations, he cautions that a proposed future study of district reconfiguration “would need to be conducted with great sensitivity to the tradition and history of each of the 35 districts of the Synod.”

He favors the creation of a separate category for commissioned ministers to serve as voting delegates to district and Synod conventions that would not reduce the number of lay or pastoral delegates, but he does not support a recommendation that would give congregations with more than 1,000 communicant members two extra votes at district conventions, stating, “It does not appear to be contributing to a greater spirit of harmony in our Synod.”

Kieschnick supports the task force recommendation in section five that calls for the establishment of five national regions to provide more effective representation of congregations across the Synod on the Praesidium (president and vice presidents) and Board of Directors of the Synod.

“Only one Synod vice president currently lives west of the Mississippi River.  He lives in St. Louis, only 20 miles west of that river,” Kieschnick writes in his response.  ”Since regular visitation of all 35 districts by the Synod president is virtually impossible, I support this recommendation, which would enable congregations to nominate vice presidents from their region.”

In section six of the task force report, Kieschnick views as “excellent” a recommendation that would allot to each district a proportionate share of the fixed number of Synod convention delegates based on the district’s percentage of the total congregations and communicants.

The task force had recommended that the number of delegates be reduced to 650, from the current number of 1,250 voting delegates and 350 advisory delegates.

“While the specific number of national convention delegates recommended by the task force would result in significant cost savings to congregations, careful consideration should be given to whether 650 delegates would provide sufficiently broad representation of congregations to national conventions,” Kieschnick comments.

He also supports the task force recommendation for a quadrennial convention cycle for circuit and district theological convocations and district and Synod conventions.

In the conclusion to his response, Kieschnick writes, “It is my prayer that the work of the task force and the decisions ultimately made by the Synod in convention will result in a system of structure and governance for our beloved Synod that will result in greater efficiency and effectiveness in accomplishing the mission our Lord has given His church.”

——————————–

As I have said and written, my biggest fear about this governance change is how congregations, especially small to medium congregations, are going to be treated. When the Synod reduces the number of delegates to the national convention, thus reducing the numbers of delegates from each district, it is guaranteed that large churches will have “more of a say” in who represents a district at convention.

Now, this is not to say that I don’t have other issues with the Blue Ribbon Task Force’s report. I feel that more worked needed to be done in explaining the cost rebalancing of the Synod, the districts, and our individual congregations. I fear that costs are going to be pressed upon our districts, causing a lot of heartache on congregations struggling to pay annual commitments.

An op-ed article in this morning’s Record made me giggle.

THE BIBLE, it turns out, is too liberal.

At least the Conservative Bible Project thinks so. The group has set itself the task of “translating” the Bible in a more conservative way, so as to eliminate liberal “misinterpretations” and prevent liberal “misconstruals.”

One of the funny things about the Bible has been the way politically liberal and conservative thinkers use the book to advance a political agenda. Both sides have, for the most part, raised up various points of Holy Scripture that portend to show that God is on their side. No matter the issue — abortion, helping the homeless, the death penalty, you name it — liberal and conservative thinkers say that God really promotes their agenda, so the other side should just shhh!

When it comes to bible translation, there are a number of people who have complained that more modern bible translations tend to be more “liberal” in their interpretation of the original languages. The complaints are always centered around words the words that were chosen to describe actions. For instance, when Jesus is crucified and the Roman soldiers are “casting lots” for his garments (thus fulfilling a prophesy), some conservative theologians believe that the phrase “casting lots” is a little to cagey. They want a more clear cut way to describe the act of the soldiers.

Hence, they want to replace “casting lots” with the word “gambling.” Not the worst thing in the world, I admit. It does render the translation more relevant.

But then go off the reservation. Apparently, the bible is also very socialistic when it renders workers as “laborers” (think – we’re laborers in the harvest field sounds too much like something Stalin would say). They complain that the English Standard Version of the bible, the one we use in church, only uses the word “volunteer” once, a word they consider more conservative.

On the other side, liberals tend to ignore some of the more direct writings in Scripture. When Scripture states that the priesthood is a role given to men, liberals tend to blame the culture that Saint Paul grew up in that minimized the role of women within the faith. Forget what Paul writes, they say; instead, use a more enlightened understanding of Holy Scripture. Instead of male-female direct references in biblical translation, liberals tend to translate roles by removing gender. By removing gender, they remove a critical translation component that renders the original languages irrelevant. They also tend to ignore that while abortion is not specifically mentioned in the Old or New Testaments, that the Word of God is clear that each child in the womb is a creation of God.

Of course, I could go on all day writing about both sides.

But the topic – from which political bent does the Word of God come – is one that will be argued until Christ’s second coming.

I have always believed that when society and the church raises up the Word of God and uses it in a political context, the real intent of the book is being missed. It is not a social contract – it is a book explaining God’s plan of salvation for humanity. It is God’s Word that shows how He justifies the sinful through the blood of His Son. It is a book that explains in a most impassioned way the life that God wanted for His creation –  a life free of sin, where the Law that was written on the tablets would be written on our hearts where we would love God above all things and those fellow humans as we would love ourselves always.

In our falling into sin, we fall away from God’s intent and struggle in our day to live better lives. God’s Word is that impetus that gears our heart to repentance so we can receive His forgiveness for our breaking of His holy Law. From that forgiveness, centered on our faith, we work hard to fulfill the Law that is simply loving God above all things and loving humanity without question. And as we live forgiven lives by our faith, we are different than what society tells us we should be like.

We just do good because that is who we are – justified before God, emboldened to show what Christ’s work for us at the cross really means.

I am a conservative theologian. My conservative Lutheran credentials are clearly stamped; just listen to me in church and in bible class. Yet, to use the Word of God to make a political point is not the intention of the Bible.

The following is my weekly Parish Announcements article from our coming weekend’s bulletin:

(more…)

The LCMS’ Blue Ribbon Governance Task Force has released their “final” report to the Synod that includes their recommendations for restructuring. As I have written before, I am not confident that the Task Force’s focus on structuring the Synod around larger congregations and districts is a good thing. Just glancing at the final report, not much has changed from their original form and my same objections stand.

Reminder – not everything being suggested is bad. Some of the ideas (such as rewriting the preamble of the Synodical Constitution) aren’t deal breakers. just head scratchers. But some of the proposals rile me up, such as reducing the number of convention delegates from 1200+ to only 650 while giving larger churches more of a say in delegate selection.

One of the more interesting aspects in my first quick glance is that the individual district structure will remain as it current is — but a special Task Force (hopefully with a better acronym than the current Blue Ribbon Task Force has) will be set up to investigate merging or eliminating districts.

Another idea I like – making the Synodical Convention (and thus, the nationally elected offices) every four years.

The lengthy report is available at the LCMS website or click here for a direct download link.

(More over at reviovine.com)

This weekend at church, we will begin a month long collection for money to help the LCMS World Relief and Human Care deal with the disasters in the Southeast Asia/Pacific region. Just this week alone, an earthquake caused a tsunami, wiping out villages and towns in the American Samoa area; horrendous flooding in the Philippines from a storm that eventually became a typhoon that pounded Vietnam; and a typhoon that hit Taiwan.

We will collect donations after church during Fellowship Hour this weekend and starting next weekend, we’ll collect a goodwill offering during our new “Coffee Hour” after church.

It is impossible for Gospel-rendered faith in Christ to be idle, and thus thousands of congregations and individuals assist us with their gifts that we might offer assistance to people in need all over the world. As we do so, we are ambassadors for Christ, his Gospel, and the magnificent confession of that Gospel in the orthodox Lutheran faith. The conservative Lutheran confession of the faith and liberal love of the neighbor belong together in the life of the individual Christian, the local congregation and the national church body.

For more information, and to watch a video with LCMS World Relief and Human Care Executive Director Matthew Harrison, please click here.

“Scripture is not clear on a lot of sexual issues,” said the Rev. Stan Abraham, pastor at Mount Calvary Lutheran Church Missouri Synod in Soquel and Trinity Lutheran Church in Watsonville. “And because it is not a cut-and-dry issue, the ELCA’s decision is reasonable at this particular time.”

The Missouri Synod’s position is that you can be a gay or lesbian member of the church, but not a practicing clergy member, celibate or not.

“It was a good decision for the ELCA to allow each congregation to decide whether or not they want to allow for the ordination of gay men and lesbians in committed relationships,” said Abraham. “The decision will not impact the good relationships we have with our colleagues at the ELCA.”

I have said it many times — the problem with Christianity is Christians. We bring our own sinful biases into the church, whether they be on social issues or political ones, and we tend to make these more about ourselves and our biases than the Word of God. To be honest, I’ve done it enough in my short ministry that I try to always take a breather or go for a walk before I either open my mouth and insert my foot. I pray that “foot in mouth” issues become less of a problem for me in the future than they have in my past.

This is something all clergy people should pray for and work towards. Why?

When an LC-MS pastor says that the Word of God isn’t clear on sexual issues, well, before he inserted his foot he should have opened up the Bible.

The Bible is clear — sex is a gift from God that is supposed to be within the confines of a marriage. While society believes sex is just sex and everyone should be doing it, God tells us otherwise. It is not that hard; we have the Word and that is what we preach.

But we also preach the repentance of the sinner and forgiveness given to each of us through our Lord Jesus Christ. Absolved of sin, we are obligated as those who forgiven to act better, to work in our lives to be better people. This includes the areas of intimacy.

This is where the church must stand. If sex outside the marriage bed is wantonly accepted, then God’s Word is ignored. The Church must never ignore the Word, no matter how much the people want us to.

That is why I am disappointed in Pastor Abraham. The sins of sex are cut and dry. But so is forgiveness through Christ to those who break them.